Well CTD, denial and obfustication again, and you still don't deal with the issues.
History isn't required in order to obtain one's own direct observations. Forgive me if I incorrectly assumed you possessed common sense enough to know this.
Which of course contradicts your earlier assertion that
History is the science by which all the others are known. If history is not valid, none of the knowledge of other types which it brings to us are valid either. It sets the boundary on certainty.
And that, of course, was my point.
You seem to have no point. There is no contradiction upon which to build one. All sciences are known via history. There are no exceptions.
Without history, one can only know what one directly observes oneself. That just isn't very much at all.
There is only one reality but history is not that reality, rather it is our understanding of that reality.
So history isn't what has happened? We disagree. I have little use for what you imagine has happened.
Thus valid history must agree with the facts. Invalid history, of which we have examples,
Now here we have a contradiction indeed.
If one's imagination is not a valid part of 'history', your original definition fails & mine prevails. I know there are things people believe which are in error. You first included them, and now turn right around and exclude them.
We obtain knowledge about history by discovery, verification, and reconciliation. It's
so simple!
You refuse to employ this method, yet you offer no alternative beyond taking your assertions.
is contradicted by the facts of reality. Myths and fantasies are particularly prone to be contradicted by the facts of reality, and thus making up stories about how things could have happened in a way consistent with a myth does not rely on facts, but on selection of only those that can be bastardized to conform to the mythology.
Have you been studying? This could pass for a pretty accurate assessment of evolutionism. There was no effort to discover, verify, or reconcile much of anything. There was just a vast amount of propaganda: "Imagine life can change into anything... imagine there was enough time for this to happen... imagine whatever you need to make this seem plausible to you..." Never was any of it based upon reality, past or present.
The earth is old, that is a fact, it is a part of reality, and any "history" that says otherwise is invalid.
I'm guessing this is the type of fact that is established by assertion... Who knows at this point?
Some of us expect facts to be proven, but... Man, it just ain't a challenge. I declare! Can you do no better? Do you have to equivocate over every single term in your efforts to create a thick enough smoke screen for your evomyths?
Or has evolutionism scrambled your mind to the point you no longer understand or speak plain English?
Or do the above constitute a false dilemma?
The universe is older than the earth, that too is a fact, a part of reality, and any "history" that says otherwise is invalid.
Ha! Another RAZDfact. So what? Can you speak, and it becomes so? Obviously not, or reality would've severely altered itself many times by now.
I was not talking about reenactments, but about the process of evolution. Forgive me if I incorrectly assumed you possessed common sense enough to know this.
Forgive me if I correctly conclude you do not know or care what you are talking about at any given moment. I do not reach this conclusion voluntarily.
But I am not going to argue about mythologies and whether they may or may not be true, or partly true. You claimed there was lots of evidence of a biblical flood: where is it? Is the best you have are a bunch of inconsistent stories, then you will excuse me if I remain skeptical.
It is not my place to excuse you for ignoring the evidence available in this and other threads. If your own conscience excuses you - that should be your concern.
I could equally "remind readers" now that "evidence" according to CTD is any mythology of choice.
Odd jest. Desperate? Well it looks like you've appointed yourself fact czar, evoczar, and now myth czar, but how many peasants does your empire oppress?
But this of course ignores CTD's misrepresentations of evidence as conclusions of evolutionists.
It is I who maintain that evolutionist conclusions are not facts, yes. It is amusing that you don't see the folly in even disputing this point.
One might suspect that you do indeed see the folly, but fear the alternative: examining these conclusions. (At this point, I would not be that one. I think the disease has progressed beyond the point where rational motives are even in play.)
I do not see a problem with a clam being 20 years old at the time of the flood. Was there something special that occurred 20 years prior to the flood which prevented clams from breeding? Please explain your new evomyth more fully, that we may all have a good laugh.
So you agree that the 20 year old clam is not evidence of a flood, having grown at a different time than this supposed event.
Well, as you cannot explain what your clam has to do with anything at all, I won't venture to guess just now.
All we have is your word that no clam could be 20 years old if there was a flood. Given your record, especially recently, I'm not terribly concerned about this.
Now that we both agree that the clam did not grow during the flood the question is how you explain the evidence of the 20 year old clam on the mountain top. I can refer to the known process of plate tectonics that have been measured and which do in fact show that the building of mountains is entirely feasible given (a) the known age of the earth, (b) the known processes of subduction and uplift - processes that do not involve biology in any way.
Well, if these processes don't involve biology, how did they grow a 20 year old clam? Really, your doubletalking nonsense invites some peculiar questions. You should read what you post sometimes.
This also explains multiple layers of marine sediment on mountains, and the alternation of marine sediment and non-marine formations. It also explains fragile structures being preserved unbroken in sedimentary layers.
The problem for you is to explain how this in any way supports a flood mythology.
And we still do not have any evidence presented that shows there was a flood. All we have are explanations of how evidence can be misinterpreted in order to fit a mythology, and nothing based on facts.
The basic problems with turning the cliffs of dover into an algae bloom are multiple, but the most telling is that the organisms at the bottom are not the same as the ones at the top, they show evolutionary change in hereditary traits from generation to generation.
Snelling's pretend scenario is nothing but fantasy built on falsehood, compiled ad hoc to attempt to wave away evidence, and it relies on ignorance for acceptance, ignorance of the rest of reality and the evidence of it.
Oh? I think the evomyth does all of these things. The ad hoc attempt to dismiss God and rewrite history has failed, when viewed realistically. No convincing lie has yet been produced after all these years.
Now it's time to see some real evidence for a flood, or to concede that none of the evidence known to man supports a biblical flood.
We'd like to have 'real evidence,' but you won't assert any for us. That's rather unfair of you. You don't assert us up any evidence or facts at all, and none of your new definitions... well, you haven't been too considerate.
Until then, we'll have to be content to make do with evidence like historic accounts, DNA, fossils, sedimentary rocks, stuff like that. That which can be verified seems to reconcile just fine.
When can we hope to see some justification for the evolutionist approach to history? They say by their actions: "Write off the parts we don't like. Call them myth, or irrelevant, or whatever... just make them go away."
